Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Overview and general recommendation:

The authors investigated the programs of sustainability related topics in logistics program using the model of Kovacic and Glavic’ classification. It is timely and important topic to discuss for the global’s most critical concerns of global logistics during the pandemic and climate change. The research can be expanded to other continents to address the critical issues. The model was developed by the authors in the past and applied to other disciplines, so the discussion has been consistent; however, I have a couple of major concerns and minor comments as follows:

 

Major Comments:

1. The presentation of the results can be improved by adopting maps and marginal /joint distribution table.
2. The study only discussed programs of Bachelor of Science (BS) and Master of Science (MS). I wonder if Bachelor of Art (BA), Bachelor of Engineering (BE), Master of Art (MA), and Master or Business Administration (MBA) are not available in Europe. If the other degrees are available, there should include them as well. In addition, The study only considered the best (or top) university in the study, but I guess they are most research focused university, so the other colleges and universities such as liberal art colleges are not in the list might have innovations on their curricula and course development.
3. The authors focused on not only logistic but also transportation programs. so I would recommend to change “logistics programs” with “logistics and transportation programs” in the title and the manuscript.

Several minor comments are also as follows:

4. Line 16: what are the horizontal perspectives. It is not clear in Abstract.
5. Line 22: The authors may add “benefits” of the study at the end of the abstract. The statement was available on Page 22, Line 640-644.
6. Line 15: Brief explanation of methodology will be of help to the audience.
7. Line 25: The sentence is missing a reference. The sentence stated “the publication of the report,” but it is not clearly referenced.
8. Line 62: Please check with the editorial team to use the number format. It may be 1.2 million instead of using 1,2 million. It is throughout the paper.
9. Line 70: “In” should be “It.”
10. Line 109: The authors concerned logistics and transportation so I would recommend to change it with “logistics and transportation” program.
11. Line 300: The font size of Figure 1 is too small to read. Please make it larger.
12. Line 332: Do you have BA, BE, MBA in Europe? Why do you have only BS and MS?
13. Line 323: Transportation program in Civil Engineering and Industrial Engineering covers the freight management and logistics engineering, but I don’t think “traffic” is related to the logistics program.
14. Line 428: please explain “following trends.”
15. Table 5: the table is missing 2 courses. It should have 63, but the sum of No. is 61.
16. Line 455: 5% represents 6 courses. So both numbers will be encouraged to show in the sentence.
17. Table 8: Visualizing the table in a map will be helpful to the audience.
18. Line 491: what are the emerging themes?
19. Line 528: I wonder if multi-disciplinary knowledge will be part of them.
20. Line 605: game-based leaning?

Author Response

Dear reviewer, 

many thanks for your valuable comments. We are enclosing our improvements, corrections in a pdf file.

 

Kind regards, authors. 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

It would be useful to state some hypothesis and validate or invalidate them, not only to state a global research question. Because the RQ1 contain not only a question, the authors may break it sub questions. There is no a RQ2 or a RQ3?

It would be also useful to analyze (compare) the name of the logistics courses.

The conclusion could be more analytic, and point more precisely the results of the study (topics - pedagogical).

 

 

 

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

many thanks for your valuable comments. In enclosed word file you can find our responses, corrections, improvements.

 

Kind regards, 

authors. 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

This study explores the sustainability-related courses in the curriculum of the top 200 universities worldwide. Overall, the manuscript is well-written and well-structured, but the contribution is not well emphasized. The following suggestions help improve your manuscript.

Introduction.

1. Line 53. Two of the three sentences are conflicting. Please re-phrase.
2. The recent growth of e-commerce can be mentioned to further highlight the role of logistics.
3. Line 70. Typo "in" should be changed to "it"
4. Around line 93. The categorization of the supply chain drivers, i.e. logistical and cross-functional, can be explained here to avoid confusion.
5. The research question can be divided into 2 RQs.
6. I'd like to see a point-by-point argument on the contribution of your work, to make it clear how your study is different from the most relevant papers you reviewed.

Literature review.

1. "A" should be removed from the section title.
2. One paragraph should explain the review process, more particularly the keywords used and the WoS operators, like OR/AND
3. I'd like to recommend the authors to provide some bibliometric analysis of the published works (i.e. the journals with most published works on this topic, year, country, university, etc.). I understand it may not be closely relevant to the objective of your study, but it helps to add further insights in the discussion section.

Methodology.

1. The sub-section headings should be selected in accordance with Figure 1.
2. Line 310. Why only SCIE and SSCI? is it because SCI is mostly around engineering topics? please clarify.
3. Line 397. "our" is repeated.
4. Please add a short explanation of the approaches listed in Section 3.3.

Discussion.

I'd like to recommend the authors to include some insights on the importance of "integrating sustainability into the curriculum" for further development of the academic literature on sustainability-related topics. The bibliometric analysis I suggested earlier can certainly help.

Conclusions.

The conclusion section should be self-sufficient. Please include a background paragraph as the introductory part of this section.

 

Writing quality is FINE, but there are mistakes that should be addressed using the proof-reading service. Therefore, I ask for "extensive editing of English language and style" so that you can use the journal's proof-reading service. Lastly, I'd like to suggest the authors change the title: "Integrating Sustainability into ..." instead of "Sustainability integration" sounds better.

Author Response

Dear reviewer, 

many thanks for your valuable comments. We are enclosing the word file with our responses, corrections, improvements.

Kind regards, 

authors. 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf